NCAA College Basketball: From Powerhouse to Parity

Last season the Kentucky Wildcats lost just two games en route to the program's eighth NCAA Tournament title. Two. They lost only one game during the regular season, a thriller against Indiana and, even then, only dropped the game on a buzzer-beating three point shot from Christian Watford. Yet aside from that stumble at Assembly Hall and a loss to Vanderbilt in the SEC title game, Kentucky was the dominant, wire-to-wire favorite to win the national championship.

This season, there hasn't been a team in D1 with only one loss since week 13 of the season. At one point, the #1 ranked team in the AP poll lost for five consecutive weeks. In week 14, four of the top five teams in the AP rankings lost. The sole survivor, Duke, barely escaped Boston College with a win on Sunday of that week. It's safe to say that being highly ranked has been no guarantee of success this season.

Parity has been the buzzword around NCAA basketball for a number of years, ever since George Mason's surprise run to the Final Four in 2006. Usually it's used to refer to mid-major programs stepping up to challenge the big dogs from BCS conferences; the Butlers, Gonzagas, Davidsons, VCUs and Creightons of college basketball. This year, though, parity really refers to the top programs challenging each other. There is no Kentucky this season. No team that's been able to run through the gauntlet virtually unscathed.

What does this mean, though, about the state of college basketball as a whole? Are there simply a lot of really good teams out there? Or are the teams that were so highly touted early on simply not as good as we all thought? This is a job for the TNIAAM panel of contributors. Think Wilbon and Kornheiser, just with more hair.

____________________________________________________________

Matt McClusky: It's probably an indictment on basketball as a whole, but college hoops is definitely being played at a lower level than we've seen in years. And with such a big problem there is probably a lot of blame to go around. But, as much as I don't want to go in this direction, it's tough not to think the parity and the lesser quality of play is due to one-and-done mentality. -- Thanks to high school's playing Harlem Globetrotters schedules, AAU ball, and the endless parade of summer tournaments, kids are more exposed than ever -- so the majority aren't thinking about NCAA championships, they're thinking about improving their draft stock. That leads to poorer team play as freshmen are getting what used to be upperclassman minutes and they're given leadership roles too early. -- Plus, teams are rebuilding or reloading more frequently. Look at Kentucky for example: a program that just won the national championship is barely a middling team in the SEC. Dealing with kids going pro after one or two years leaves issues for programs for years to come. Like Syracuse attempting to replace a Dion Waiters (who left after his sophomore year), you can find points somewhere but replacing his game takes time. I'm not sure if the solution is changing the one-year NBA rule and adding one year or just eliminating the rule entirely, but I believe the quality of play is way down due to years of kids playing to go pro and then actually following through with that plan a little too early for everyone involved.

John Cassillo: To me, it just appears as if the talent gap between the "haves" and "have-nots" is virtually non-existent. So now, we have a larger handful of "very good" teams than before, but none that are necessarily "great." Look at the top teams in the country -- Indiana, Florida, Michigan, Duke -- all of them have some fatal flaw that's been exploited at least a few times this year. Teams like Butler, Gonzaga, Creighton and St. Louis, all from mid-major conferences, now likely have a better shot than ever to reach the Final Four. In many ways, it reminds me a lot of the 2005-06 season; every team in the country had at least three losses going into the tournament and one of the top seeds (Villanova) even had four losses. With no dominant team out there, it was truly anyone's game -- resulting in George Mason's famed Final Four run and a final weekend without a number-one seed. I'm expecting much of the same in this year's tournament, which should make for a wild month of basketball.

Andrew Pregler: Parity. What the NFL so gloriously proclaims it possesses and creates a sort of moral judgement upon all other sports for not possessing. Collegiate parity is different. There will always be rich schools and there will always be not as rich schools. However, college basketball has always challenged this. Small schools make runs and the Big East features programs dependent on basketball success. However this season, there is either perfect parity or a lack of talent. I personally believe it is both. First, parity in that today, social media, the internet and superior budgets at even small schools allow for coaches to access the best players easier than ever. Coaches can now check Scout, Rivals or Max Preps for updates on thousands of high school players and can compete for their talents. The talent is spread out, which isn't a bad thing. But I think the talent pool in general has shrunk. The NBA one-and-done rule to me is stupidity and greed at it's finest. The NCAA wanted players for money, the NBA wanted players for money and they both wanted them ASAP. Thus, the NBA created the rule and coaches get one year with elite players. Great coaches used to be able to mold a elite athlete into an elite basketball player. That can't happen in one year. I am in the firm belief that until the NBA creates an NFL-like 3 year rule, this is College Basketball from now until ever. I'm not the biggest fan, but I doubt David Stern is going to change a thing. Coaches like Calipari have found one way of success (All One and Dones) while guys like Boeheim (Mix of one and dones + traditional four year pieces) have found others.

Sean Keeley: First of all, let's be clear. Parity is great. I don't understand that undercurrent that seems to seep into the discussion so often when it comes to parity that it represents a bad thing. Unfortunately, as much as many people won't admit it, they like knowing Duke and North Carolina are both really good and playing one another. It's easy, it's dependable and it doesn't require anything other than preconceived notions about those teams. But when you say that Miami and Gonzaga are among the best teams, that pisses some people off because it requires work to care about that. You actually have to find out about these teams, who they are, and what you should think about them. God forbid.

Anyway, I think parity has slowly but surely been happening for a while in NCAA basketball. Sure, you can point to the years that Butler or VCU made it to the Final Four as proof but the real proof is the way those mid-level schools are competing with the elite programs year-in and year-out. Obviously, the talent pool has thinned because all of the top players leave early for the NBA, which means elite schools lack the superstars of the past and mid-level teams are full of juniors/seniors that can match up.